MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
![“It is not that [Gallo's] mission has been aborted. We have given him a hard blow thanks to the State security agencies,” Cabello underlined](/data/cache/noticias/102697/130x80/diosdado.jpg)
Expanding Alliances in the 21st Century: The U.S. and Brazil Unite to Address Matters of National Security
The recent signing of a new defense agreement between the Western hemisphere’s two dominant powers, Brazil and the United States, has brought about an important change to Latin America’s relations with the U.S. On April 12, 2010, Brazil took another step to enhance its geopolitical influence by signing the U.S.-Brazil Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA). Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment ruleswe said it once and now the proof, the yanks get a base in south america, ebit northern part, but south america all the same, now she will creep down the coast over the years, untill she has bases in argentina and or chile, some people never learn, invite them in, and never get rid, at least the brits are 300 odd mile of the coast,, the yanks will be on your door stop.
Aug 22nd, 2010 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The paper is wrong.
Aug 23rd, 2010 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wrote at COHA.org - the website where the paper was originally published - some criticism of it. I posted under the name of Rafael. Here: http://tiny.cc/qg6au
There are inumerable mistakes in the article. It gets the US-Brazilian dictatorship relationship wrong, and in a way that rather diminishes U.S. support for the Brazilian military regime. It says the US reduced collaboration with the Brazilian government during the dictatorship. Incorrect. The US reduced cooperation with the two presidents that preceded the coup, Quadros and Goulart: the first because he supported Cuba during a US 1961 invasion of its territory; and Goulart, because he was a leftist. The US, as a matter of fact, supported the coup plotters who overthrew Goulart.
Also, the paper says that in 1977 the US cut military relations with the Brazilian government due to its human rights abuses and nuclear program. But who broke the deal was Brazil because it didn't tolerate US meddling of its internal affairs. Even the opposition to the Brazilian dictatorship at the Congress - the MDB party - didn't want international meddling in the issue.
As for the US military bases issue, who first asserted that there would be ones in Brazil was the “Estado de São Paulo”, a daily that is strongly opposed to the Lula gov and sometimes ignores truth to attack the it. Days after Estado de São Paulo spread that gossip, they were contradicted by U.S. ambassador in Brazil Thomas Shannon and by the Brazilian Minister of Strategic Issues Samuel Pinheiro. Both said: the agreements predicts exchange of information, mutual visits by civil and military delegations, etc. But unlike the U.S.-Colombia agreement this one doesn’t say anything about permitting U.S. presence in Brazil. Trust me, Lula wouldn't permit such a thing. The content of the accord is in here (in Portuguese): http://tiny.cc/qg6au
well if you are correct, thats ok.
Aug 23rd, 2010 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the brazilians must keep control,
Some people may want to see this defense cooperation agreement between the US and Brazil in the light of the presence of US bases in Colombia and other latin american countries, but that's a completely unfounded view.
Aug 24th, 2010 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0The US-Colombia relationship for instance, is of an asymmetric nature in military, economic and geopolitical terms between the two nations and cannot be compared to the US-Brazil relationship, which in itself draws a very different line on the sand with a degree of symmetry between both geopolitical forces with common interests in the region.
Jose,
Aug 24th, 2010 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0What about the US-Japan relatioship? Japan is a populous, economically powerful country. Until last year it was the world's second greatest economy. But that doesn't preclude the U.S. from treating Japan as a US aircraft carrier in East Asia. (“Aircraft carrier”, by the way, is how some U.S. military called Taiwan years ago.) Former Japan premier, Yukio Hatoyama, tried to move the US bases installed in Okinawa. The Okinawa population has been complaining about U.S. presence for years. But the U.S. refused to take its bases away from the country. The U.S. doesn't respect other countries sovereignty, whether they are friends or enemies - this is well known. If they treat Japan like that - and as I told before Japan is a powerful country even if a passive one - it wouldn't treat Brazil, a Third World nation, with any more respect.
As I told before, Lula knows that. A former Chief of Staff of his, José Dirceu, said Brazil should have done what was within its reach to prevent US presence in South America - for once the US gets to install a military base in a country, it NEVER leaves it.
In 2001 the US tried to get the a satellite launcher base in Northeast Brazil under its control (and for a ridiculously low price). Our former president, the entreguista Fernando Henrique Cardoso, signed the accord that granted the US exclusive access to the base. But the accord was canceled after an overwhelming defeat in both Congress and popular referendum. But still it shows that the US is anxious to have bases in wherever they can install one - and once they do so, they want total control of the area. That's why US presence is bothersome to me. Guarantees that the host country's sovereignty is going to be respected are empty. “The United States is not a trustworthy country”, said Brazilian historian Moniz Bandeira. I hope all of the Brazilian political class be aware of that.
Forgetit87
Aug 24th, 2010 - 04:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think you can define a relationship between two great nations in a single sentence. The US-Japan relationship was established at the end of the second world war, it was a complex relationship marked by the winner and the loser of the same war, by the country that launched a surprised attack on Pearl Harbor while the US and Japan were still negotiating terms, and by the country that dropped two atomic boms on Japan, it was marked by the second war in asia that was literally fought by those two nations, island per island, and it was later marked by the cold war, by the USSR and China, and by the threat of communist expansion in Asia and the fact that the US did not want Japan to rise again as a military power. However Japan became an economic power, also thanks to the US.
But Japan still needs the US protection in Asia. The US remains the most powerful military force in Asia and serves as deterrence force protecting its allies from local powers in Asia. China for example has invaded almost every nation on its borders: Tibet, Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea, India, etc. The whole Asia region is fearful of China's rise and many countries there welcome the Americans to counterbalance China's threat. I am not saying the americans are angels there, they are definitely pursuing their own interests, but some of their interests are also the interests of Japan, South Korea, Singapur, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Filippines, Vietnam, India, and many other countries in the region that are now friends to the US.
I think the US-Brazil relationship has got to be different and will be different because there is an entirely different context here in latin america.
I thank you for offering context to the US-Japan agreement, Jose. But I think my point stands still. That the US presence is useful to Japan's defense, I do not dispute. But the country as a whole - both its political class and population - wants to get rid of US presence. This might be an irrational feeling: perhaps the Japanese don't see what their long-term interests are. But not respecting the country's will, equals disrespecting its sovereignty.
Aug 24th, 2010 - 05:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0On Japan's situation, there's something else that is of interest to the discussion: Yukio, that former Japan premier, tried to implement a policy of rapproachment with East Asia. He wanted to create a trade area that would unify Japan, China, and South Korea in a single bloc. Imagine if this been established: the relationship between these countries would have been improved (just as that between France, the UK and Germany has improved after) and in a long term way - for it's in a country's interests to have good relations with its trade partners, whoever they are. I believe this - the integration of East Asia - would have done more for defending Japan's security needs than having another country's army installed in the country (and that is in itself dangerous). The US wouldn't like East Asia to create an unified bloc. Imagine what a geopolitical force a China-Japan union would be! The US is suspicious of political integration projects. That, one can see in how it opposes EU's project to create an unified army.
As for Brazil, I already told of the 2001 failed agreement the US tried to firm with it. The agreement was so abusive to Brazil, that after Cardoso left power some tried to sue him for high treason. The agreement would in practice concede control of the base for the US for an indefinite amount of time. I can pass you some links discussing the failed accord. So whatever is the Latin America context vis-à-vis that of East Asia, the fact is that the US wants to have presence in the area for as long as it can.
Forgetit87,
Aug 24th, 2010 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The US is an hegemonic power. It is beyond being good or bad, that's not the case. By nature the US exercises power and leadership, either through diplomacy, military, political or economical coercion, or by persuasion in almost every corner in the world because it is the world's superpower with the capability of extending its military reach anywhere in the world in matter of days.
But so does Russia, and China, and it is my conviction that Brazil is evolving into another hegemonic power in South America, but whose influence will also project into Central America and Sub-Saharan Africa. But I think Brazil has to learn to negotiate its terms first with the US and from what I have read and seen I believe President Lula understands that.
In my opinion, that's the world order today.
Now I have to disagree with you on a possible China-Japan union in the region. These two countries may be sleeping in the same bed but they share very different dreams. China is hegemonic but it is also in an expansionist stage and their huge population numbers will demand living space, which will have to come from its neighbors only and it already has. In trying to find its way out to the straits, it invaded Vietnam some decades ago but were defeated. China's military rise puts that country against virtually all its neighbors. Perhaps trade relations will eventually unite those countries, but I sincerely doubt it.
Mexico and Canada were swallowed by the US economically, culturally, socially and politically, but not without resistance and in the same degree that Argentina and other countries in Brazil's playground do not want to be swallowed by Brazil now but they eventually will be. Japan does not want to be eventually swallowed by China, and South Korea, Japan, Singapur and others feel the same way. That's why the US presence in Asia is actually growing and with support from those states because the US is the only power capable of standing on the way of China in the region.
(8) Jose................
Aug 24th, 2010 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can sense that you are a fanatical anticomunist but please try to keep in this planet!!!
You write:
(China) invaded Vietnam some decades ago but were defeated!!!!!!
Are you on Peyote or what?
Think,
Aug 25th, 2010 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0China invaded Vietnam in 1979, the highly trained Vietnam soldiers kicked their ass, the Chinese demonstrated how backward and unprepared their army was, they lost many battles and the war in the end, they suffered thousands of casualties, did not achieve any of their territorial demands, got bankrupted after all the expenses of the war and had to withdraw in a painful sorry way out of Vietnam.
You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
Am I a fanatical anti-communist? No. I just don't believe in utopias.
On the US usefulness in protecting another country, Think has reminded of this: that the US, too, has a history of unilateral intervention in East Asia, and one even bloodier than that of China. The Vietnam war, the Korea war... The US is expanding its presence in East Asia due to regional fears of domination under China. But that directly conflicts with the fact that I've presented above on Japan: that both its population and political leaders want the US to move away. As for China, one must remember that an expansionist move over some state of the region, even if a weak one, would fire alarm to all of its neighbors. Russia, India, Pakistan: all of them are neighbors of China, all of them are nuclear powers, and two of them, Russia and India, have a history of border conflict with it. Aggressive expansionism, I think, isn't in China's interests, and it's already done its part in avoiding it. Its birth control laws have already reduced birth numbers to levels that are far below those of countries in a similar development stage as itself. Also, Japan would be a poor candidate as a victim of Chinese expansionism: it's small, heavily populated and resource-poor.
Aug 25th, 2010 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0LatAm can draw some conclusions - cautionary tales - about the East Asia situation. For LatAm has been the area par excellence where the US has claimed leadership upon. But its leadership has been waning rapidly. It's still thought about as a hegemon, but increasingly only in a nominal way. Its economic presence is shrinking, and - consequently - so is its political presence. The US won't let it go easily, I know. It now wants to secure long-term presence through military expansion. That's a threatening move that most countries in SA will know how to avoid.
I repeat: a Brazil-US pact wouldn't be more respectful than a Colombia-US one. You perhaps don't know about this, but Rumsfeld did try to export “Plan Colombia”-type agreements to all of LatAm. Our leaders have ignored him, though.
Interesting thoughts, Forgetit87. specially reminding us about how fragile the situation is in Asia with all those nuclear powers, some of them controlled by people the likes of Kim Jong-il. Indeed Asia remains the most dangerous continent in the world. Of Brazil I know very little, and I cannot even fathom the new realities of South America.
Aug 25th, 2010 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0But I studied and lived in the US and I know the people and country and I take them as they really are, nothing but people. I don't follow the anti-imperialism rhetoric, I read history from many a source and I am not a Pollyanna to think of US influence as all beneficial to any country out there, even Japan, I know the US has invaded many countries, heck! they invaded mine one hundred years ago, I know their failures are legion, but in point of fact I just think any other country will exert its power in exactly the same way if given the opportunity.
But is the US power fading away? I don't know, the State of California alone is the eight largest economy in the world, with less than 40 million people and it is famous not for its natural resources, but rather for its value added products and technologies. It exports computer chips and high tech products, agricultural products, manufacturing of all kinds. needless to say its film industry is the largest in the world, the Silicon Valley generates new technologies like no other city in the world. Many nobel prize winners have come out from its fine universities.
China, India, Russia and other countries are now trying to catch up with the US but they lag behind in technology, science, education, infrastructure, and particularly in political stability. Some of them will grow old or fall in chaos before they get rich. Russia is a case in point.
The US army is present in more than a 150 countries in the world and its naval and air forces have access to hundreds of bases all over the world. And their President Obama is one of the most admired leaders in the world.
(10) Jose
Aug 25th, 2010 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ahhhhhh.... That little border incident... You will have to excuse me but I had almost forgot it....
Anyhow, a little exagerated to say that the Vietnamese “defeated” the Chinese :-)
And about your more than incipient anticomunism........
I remember reading one of your comments about all those “Cuban Spies” roaming uncontrolled the whole of South America disguised as doctors......
Sounds very “Glen Beck” - “Fox News” - “Cold Warish” to me......
But one thing you say is absolutely correct:
“You cannot even fathom the new realities of South America.”
I don't either,..... but what I can see with my own eyes impresses me. Would have never beileved it possible 30 years ago...... But it is happening.....
That China and India have deficiencies that can impair their growth prospects, is well known. But passing through a time of infrastructure and life quality improvement is common to the history of all developed countries. It can't hope that they'll continue to be as poor forever. Also, their huge populations assure they'll have a world projection no matter how poor they keep being. The same with the US: it's stronger than the Scandinavia countries, not because its citizens have better life quality (they haven't), but because of the country's size. Plus, China already is an economic and military power; and India, a heavyweight in the hi-tech world. That the US continues to be a great power, though, can't be denied. Its GDP's still 3 times that of China. But is its power as great as it once was? Having in mind other countries' reaction to the US, that doesn't seem to be true. It's no longer just France or Germany: now, many other nations question US world policy decisions in significant ways: Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, countries that were thought to be aligned with it. And China, India and Russia don't even need to be mentioned: they were never thought to belong to the Western bloc.
Aug 25th, 2010 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, there's something that I do agree with you: that, if a superpower replaces the US, it'll behave just as recklessly. The one with greater power always wounds up abusing the one with smaller power. And the larger the power imbalance is, the greater will be the degree of the abuse. That's part of human nature and is reflected in the organizations we form (countries, for instance). In that, the US is no different, I know. But there's one thing that does distinguish it from past world empires: the degree of its hypocrisy. How it keeps masking its abuses and thirst for power under the guise of “universal” values and human rights concerns; how it exploits, whether legally or illegally, other peoples in the world, but still gets to pose as the world police.
Think,
Aug 25th, 2010 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0No glen beck here, no fox news either, they are offensively biased and toxically radical.
No communism, no radicalism of any kind here.
Edmund Burke, Ayn Rand, Russell Kirk, true conservatism and libertarian ideals, yes.
I am for the freedom and the potential of the individual, not the coercive power of collectivism and authoritarian states.
Forgetit87,
The US is not capable to exert the same authority is used to have in the past. I concede that and thank you for expanding on the topic.
I believe we have seen the growth of China, India, Brazil and other countries is not linear but exponential, every few decades their gdp's increases two, three-fold or even more. Exponential growth is always explosive and eventually destroys previous paradigms.
Will large populations define the economic and political power of nations in the next century? they didn't in the past and there's no guarantee they will in the future.
I learned that the success of the US resided in that its no-centralized federative structure and their checks and balances managed to bring prosperity and freedom to its large populations.
My fear is that if China, India or other nations mismanage and fail to bring prosperity but rather bring hungry and poverty to their large populations, like they did in the past with terrible consequences, their future will be compromised.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!